The comprehensive weight carrying ability thread

Wagtail

Wagtail

Horse servant
Joined
2 December 2010
Messages
14,815
Location
Lincs
Visit site
We seem to have a never ending stream of weight threads on here asking how much weight a horse can carry, or if they are too heavy for their horse etc. I do enjoy these threads but often wonder if the original posters go away any the wiser. There is such a huge difference in opinions regarding the weight carrying ability of horses. So I thought I would start this thread, maybe we could even have a sticky? It is for people to add their own observations or formulas regarding weight carrying ability. Then perhaps people could apply a few of them and take the average weight and apply that.
A very sensible formula that I came across recently is here:
http://www.horseprotection.org/id51.html
Briefly:
How does one determine the proper size horse for him/herself? (This will not work for ponies or pony size horses.) Here is a formula with example:

1. Add up the total weight of the horse, rider, and tack. Our example: Horse + rider + tack= 1188 pounds
2. Measure the circumference of the cannon bone midway between the knee and fetlock. Our example: 7.5 inches
3. Divide the total weight by the circumference. Our example: 1188 / 7.5 = 158.4
4. Divide the result by two. Our example: 158.4 / 2 = 79.2
Values below 75 are great! Values from 75-80 are acceptable. Values over 80 indicate weaker legs and a need to train carefully, especially downhill. At this level a rider needs a horse with more substance.
* Reference: The Heavier Riders' Guide by Beverly Whittington and Rhonda Hart-Poe
In our example the horse rated near the end of the acceptable range and should be able to carry the rider comfortably. However, how the horse has or has not been conditioned in addition to how it will be ridden should be considered.
 
Not that I thought that I was in any way too heavy for my highland, but followed your formula out of interest. 71.5, so definitely not pony squashing ;)
 
Hipo said:
Not that I thought that I was in any way too heavy for my highland, but followed your formula out of interest. 71.5, so definitely not pony squashing ;)
Click to expand...

I think it's a really good formula because it takes into account the horse's weight too and the amount of bone a horse has.
 
Last edited:
A simpler formula is the '20% rule'. It is very important that this is only done on horses that are not overweight, so definitely not to be done if your horse scores more than a 3 on the five point condition scoring. Personally I think that 20% is too heavy and we should be aiming for around 15 - 17% max. This weight should include clothing, all riding gear coats, hats, BPs and saddle.
 
Wagtail said:
Values below 75 are great! Values from 75-80 are acceptable. Values over 80 indicate weaker legs and a need to train carefully, especially downhill. At this level a rider needs a horse with more substance.
.
Click to expand...
Or the horse needs a diet!
 
I've just been doing some research for an assignment and came across a paper that suggest that loin width could be used to predict weight carrying capacity, don't know if that would be of interest to anyone? It was only an introductory study though, so a fair bit of further research is needed, and I can't seem to find anything more recent regarding that particular method :/
 
Jinx94 said:
I've just been doing some research for an assignment and came across a paper that suggest that loin width could be used to predict weight carrying capacity, don't know if that would be of interest to anyone? It was only an introductory study though, so a fair bit of further research is needed, and I can't seem to find anything more recent regarding that particular method :/
Click to expand...

Yes definitely. I have heard about this being the best predictor of weight carrying ability. I seem to recall it was the same research as came up with the 20% rule. Not sure though.
 
The circumference of the cannon bone?, we have to take in to account the quality of that bone, some of these cobs have big bones, but I would take a TB to be stronger than some cob, inch for inch.
PS I think if horse looks "spindly" avoid it at all costs.

I have trained a "spindly" TB, he was 16.00 hh but not a weight carrier, he was "top heavy", I think his hips were normal.
A strong 16.00hh TB could carry an adult male all day with no problem.
 
Last edited:
Bonkers2 said:
The circumference of the cannon bone?, we have to take in to account the quality of that bone, some of these cobs have big bones, but I would take a TB to be stronger than some cob, inch for inch.
PS I think if horse looks "spindly" avoid it at all costs.

I have trained a "spindly" TB, he was 16.00 hh but not a weight carrier, he was "top heavy", I think his hips were normal.
A strong 16.00hh TB could carry an adult male all day with no problem.
Click to expand...

I do agree about the quality of bone. TBs and Arabs have denser, stronger bones than IDs and cobs. However, these weight carrying formulas are just an average guide. You have to use common sense too and look at age, fitness and conformation too, as well as rider ability and fitness.
 
Mmm not sure about this calculation.

I have 2 tbs about the same height.

One has more bone, tends to build muscle easily and is frequently mistaken for a warmblood. I have a second who is a lighter horse generally, less bone and is also much more difficult to build muscle on. Neither are overweight, both have no serious conformation faults and according to the the vet good frames and backs. Neither are spindly but horse A weighs significantly more than horse B because of his build and (for a tb) treetrunk like legs. He is not top heavy.

He is therefore coming off as less capable in this calculation than the finer one with less bone.
 
criso said:
Mmm not sure about this calculation.

I have 2 tbs about the same height.

One has more bone, tends to build muscle easily and is frequently mistaken for a warmblood. I have a second who is a lighter horse generally, less bone and is also much more difficult to build muscle on. Neither are overweight, both have no serious conformation faults and according to the the vet good frames and backs. Neither are spindly but horse A weighs significantly more than horse B because of his build and (for a tb) treetrunk like legs. He is not top heavy.

He is therefore coming off as less capable in this calculation than the finer one with less bone.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting point. Obviously the calculation is just meant to be a guide. However, we don't actually know which horse really finds it easier to carry weight. We only have our own perceptions. Sometimes really lean skinny people can be stronger than bulkier people.
 
T
criso said:
Mmm not sure about this calculation.

I have 2 tbs about the same height.

One has more bone, tends to build muscle easily and is frequently mistaken for a warmblood. I have a second who is a lighter horse generally, less bone and is also much more difficult to build muscle on. Neither are overweight, both have no serious conformation faults and according to the the vet good frames and backs. Neither are spindly but horse A weighs significantly more than horse B because of his build and (for a tb) treetrunk like legs. He is not top heavy.

He is therefore coming off as less capable in this calculation than the finer one with less bone.
Click to expand...

Have to say there is something odd about that calculation! As soon as the horses weight and bone is increased its weight carrying capacity is reduced.
By this formula my 14 H&H cob with 10" bone has oodles of spare capacity in carrying me, whereas my 15.2hh cob with 11" bone has far less to spare. He's a hulking great monster - this can't be right!
 
cobgoblin said:
T

Have to say there is something odd about that calculation! As soon as the horses weight and bone is increased its weight carrying capacity is reduced.
By this formula my 14 H&H cob with 10" bone has oodles of spare capacity in carrying me, whereas my 15.2hh cob with 11" bone has far less to spare. He's a hulking great monster - this can't be right!
Click to expand...

If you click on the link it explains a bit more about it. Apparently it does not work for ponies. :)
 
Wagtail said:
If you click on the link it explains a bit more about it. Apparently it does not work for ponies. :)
Click to expand...

How does it know he's a pony? Even if I increase his weght to 1100 lbs he still has more weight carrying ability than my 15.2hh !
 
cobgoblin said:
How does it know he's a pony? Even if I increase his weght to 1100 lbs he still has more weight carrying ability than my 15.2hh !
Click to expand...

It means you cannot accurately use the formula on ponies. It is not applicable to ponies.

However, I am of the belief that smaller horses can carry more as a proportion of their weight than large horses can. Many native ponies are much stronger for their size than large horses proportionately.
 
Wagtail said:
It means you cannot accurately use the formula on ponies. It is not applicable to ponies.

However, I am of the belief that smaller horses can carry more as a proportion of their weight than large horses can. Many native ponies are much stronger for their size than large horses proportionately.
Click to expand...

There is no proviso for height in the calculation, only weight, amount of bone and rider weight. Therefore the calculation is treating my 14hh cob as a horse of any height weighing 1100lbs(which he doesn't! I upped the weight to be above the pony range.) with 10" of bone. He apparently can carry more weight than a larger horse with 11" of bone. I can assure you that this is very much not the case and still would not be case if he were 15.2 hh. This is a flawed calculation, I think they may have left something vital out or, it is only meant to compare horses of a similar size.
 
cobgoblin said:
There is no proviso for height in the calculation, only weight, amount of bone and rider weight. Therefore the calculation is treating my 14hh cob as a horse of any height weighing 1100lbs(which he doesn't! I upped the weight to be above the pony range.) with 10" of bone. He apparently can carry more weight than a larger horse with 11" of bone. I can assure you that this is very much not the case and still would not be case if he were 15.2 hh. This is a flawed calculation, I think they may have left something vital out or, it is only meant to compare horses of a similar size.
Click to expand...

Your 14hh is a pony. It clearly says the calculation is not applicable to ponies. :confused3:
 
The fact that the horse "measurement" is by weight dosn't seem very logical to me. That would work if the horses body score was perfect, but if the horse was very overweight, then the calculation would be skewed.
 
I can think of cases where I've known horses that would weigh about the same and similar height but one was a lot more top heavy with less bone where this formula would come into its own.

However I still think with some as weight increases with bone but are in proportion, then I'm not sure it works as well.
 
NZJenny said:
The fact that the horse "measurement" is by weight dosn't seem very logical to me. That would work if the horses body score was perfect, but if the horse was very overweight, then the calculation would be skewed.
Click to expand...

Well an very overweight horse would come out with a higher figure so less able which is fine. The problem for me is light framed underweight horse would have an apparent higher weight carrying abilty
 
Wagtail said:
Your 14hh is a pony. It clearly says the calculation is not applicable to ponies. :confused3:
Click to expand...

I think you may be missing the point.
The fact that he IS of pony size is irrelevant.
He could be 14.3, 16 hh or 16.3. The calculation doesn't know the difference. It would still give him a better weight carrying ability than a true heavy set weight carrier because the weight of a larger horse varies more than the bone measurement.
Just to show how daft it is;
If you take a 1000lb horse with 30lbs of tack and a 370lbs rider. Horse has 10" of bone.
1000+30+370= 1400
1400/10=140
140/2=70
70 is in the acceptable range. BUT this rider weghs 26st 6lbs!!!
 
cobgoblin said:
I think you may be missing the point.
The fact that he IS of pony size is irrelevant.
He could be 14.3, 16 hh or 16.3. The calculation doesn't know the difference. It would still give him a better weight carrying ability than a true heavy set weight carrier because the weight of a larger horse varies more than the bone measurement.
Just to show how daft it is;
If you take a 1000lb horse with 30lbs of tack and a 370lbs rider. Horse has 10" of bone.

1000+30+370= 1400
1400/10=140
140/2=70
70 is in the acceptable range. BUT this rider weghs 26st 6lbs!!!
Click to expand...

I don't think you would find a horse that weighs only 1000 lb with ten inches of bone that is horse size. My spindly little 14.3 weighs 1014lbs and only has 8.25 inches of bone. I think you need to only use it on horses of ideal condition too.
 
I'm currently losing weight to ride this chap


he's a 14.3 cob x, we believe he's probably crossed with a heavy horse breed like a clysedale or something cause his head is massive. He's 8 years old and has been driving with the RDA since he was broken in so he's a nice young fit boy. But my RDA group organiser says he's got a 14 stone weight limit for riding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top